Determinants of EU antidumping actions against East Asian countries

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate the trends of antidumping actions targeting East Asia and to examine the macroeconomic determinants of European Union (EU) antidumping actions against East Asian countries including China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Design/methodology/approach -A Negative Binomial Regression approach is used to estimate the macroeconomic determinants (exchange rates, gross domestic product (GDP) growth, and unemployment rates) of EU antidumping actions against East Asian countries. Findings -The empirical estimation results suggest that the macroeconomic determinants (exchange rates, GDP growth, and unemployment rates) significantly affect antidumping initiations against a particular country in a particular year; in addition, the changing competitive structure and environment in international trade play a role in prompting antidumping actions, and the countries which are larger sources of EU imports are more likely to be hit with antidumping actions. Originality/value -This is the first paper to examine the macroeconomic determinants of EU antidumping actions targeting East Asian countries and the empirical estimation results provide strong evidence. It also finds that the changing competitive structure and environment in international trade prompt antidumping actions.

Antidumping under International Fragmentation: Evidence from China

“…That is, countries in the East Asia value chain are less likely to file AD actions against China. According to the literature, the fragmented manufacturing network between China, East Asia and the USA is one of the strongest (Johnson and Noguera, ; Zhou and Cuyvers, ). Therefore, a higher level of fragmentation reduces the likelihood of AD actions.…”

“…We assume that output has a negative correlation with AD initiations. We use gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate as an independent variable, as it is used as a common independent variable by many researchers (Feinberg, ; Zhou and Cuyvers, ).…”

Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China

“…However, the resulting balance of payment imbalances consumed foreign currency reserves. Mexico's current account deficit is around 5.8% of GDP, but increased to 7% in 1994 [28]. Conversely, AD duties increase the cost of foreign-made products, thus discouraging foreign currency outflows from the current account.…”

Factors Affecting The Use Of WTO Fiscal Protection Instruments

“…Moore & Zanardi (2009), investigating whether anti-dumping investigations are being used by countries for escape clauses, has concluded that the safety valve argument is not supported and that anti-dumping measures serve to hamper trade liberalization. Zhou & Cuyvers (2009), Zeng (2011), Choi & Kim (2014), Bagchi et al (2015) and Li (2018), similarly macroeconomic variables were effective in anti-dumping investigations, Egger & Nelson (2011) has concluded that the antidumping investigations affected the world trade volume and world welfare. In the literature, it is found that anti-dumping investigations are carried out by retaliation between countries (Moore & Zanardi, 2001: 601-619).…”

“…For this reason, the first 17 countries using these instruments and the years 1995 (WTO foundation year) -2016 (date of study) were taken into consideration as a sample according to the WTO database. As a matter of fact, when the studies in the literature are examined, it is considered that the sample time interval (22 years) is sufficient (Knetter & Prusa, 2003;Aggarwal, 2004;Feinberg, 2005;Jallab et al, 2009;Zhou & Cuyvers, 2009;Choi & Kim, 2014;Bagchi et al, 2015). In Table 2, the status and source of variables used in the analysis have been seen.…”